I know that, but the topic can still evolve, no?
That being said, I think that to go further in this thread would be to hijack my own because there is no natural segue to be had here.

I can't say what db I am looking for, I just sold the stuff and never messed around with placing numbers on the volume. Most people just told me they either wanted great quality, stupid loud or both. Hence it was largely up to speculation as to what might make them happy and then just point them in the general direction. To sum up my point here, I don't know how loud I want to be numerically...

What did you mean when you said that tight could refer to driver distortion?

I think "tight" is a very bad terminology.
Your sub will not sound "tight" if its not integrating with midbass properly (eg you need to level match them, but overall flat response isn't necessarily "good", ie see fletcher-munsoon curve). If your sub distorts a lot, some people find it offensive and they say its not "tight" anymore.
Some people say it sounds "tight" if there's snappy midbass, maybe midrange for some?

Ah, I see now what you are talking about. Okay, so now that can be thrown into the the rubbish bin for vague terminology. The trouble with all this is that sound tends to be like taste - difficult to describe accurately to another person and still be understood. Even the so called experts use phrases which in now way are comprehensible to other people. In fact, I think that most of the time when someone says that they know what you mean by a certain term they either were not really listening or just don't want to look foolish.
Sorry for the confusion.

yes, everyone has different music styles, so every driver can sound great or horrible to different people. but the reality is that many of us do not have access to hundreds of different drivers, or are able to afford to buy them, try them, and send them back.

so any review you can find on the drivers is the best alternative.

this is exactly why i will not give driver recommendations here-- first off, i really only focus on drivers that meet my needs, and secondly, the posts here asking for a 'good speaker' generally have no idea what type of sound they want, so i am left shooting into the dark-- in a area that has thousands of different companies with multiple different driver offerings..

the descriptions that a review tends to give different drivers are usually the best way to give a broad overview of how the driver reacts, and to give the reader a great idea of how the driver will react to different music-- even if the audio used in the test is something you would never listen to.

Sound:
I found both of these drivers to be easy going and pleasant sounding. I sort of want to say laid back, but it wouldn't be correct. The presence isn't actually laid back, rather just smoothed over, pleasing to listen to for long periods of time. I'm speaking of both woofer and tweeter in conjunction as I find both relatively similar in character and match very well. This combination is a great option for those with sensitive ears. There is really nothing that is output that will sound harsh or annoying. To others, this may be their downfall. People looking for the utmost clarity and articulation will be let down as the real fine detail points really aren't there.

so the reviewer likes a laid laid back sound, but also notes that it also means some comprise on the level of detail. so far, the reviewer sounds like he prefers a sound similar to what i like-- no tweeters that are IN YOUR FACE!!!! and mids that don't want to draw attention to themselves, and also drivers that can distort the overall sound slightly-- so you can't hear that it really is a mp3 instead of the original cd..

Tonality:
Again, both are similar in sound. Everything comes across pretty neutral, but the smooth nature does provide a slightly warmer feel from both drivers. However, it's not really a factor of strong or overpowering bass. The woofer does have a small dip in the 2-3kHz range that does create slightly muffled vocals and produces a warmer tone. Minor EQing flattens this out and makes for a very netural woofer or a little more makes it more lively. The tweeter is quite sedate in the same manner, nothing really standing out or overpowering, just very mild.

the easiest way to understand this would be to tweak a eq for you mids down in the 1-3khz range-- it will make the sound warmer-- it will seem that the voices have more depth, or realism-- their not just playing through the speakers, but you can hear them annuciate the words better then a standard set of speakers..

while this review lacks what song he used to test the speakers, it gives me a good reference point of what i could expect the drivers to sound like if i were to get them..

as i said before, i prefer to read reviews of drivers that list the music they're listening with as well. if they do that, you could go out and buy that specific song, and see what it you hear in the track.

you have to expect this to be time consuming-- just this reply has taken over a hour to find the reviews and attempt to explain them..(it took me almost 2 years just to get new speakers for my car..)

the best thing to do is to start going to different car audio stores, take a cd, or mp3 player full of your favorite music, and play around with the speakers.

i like to use one specific track, and keep playing it on all the different options, keeping the amps, and headunit they have the same, so the only variable is the speakers.

also, don't pay attention to price at first-- if they are pushing you to get a $600 set, you should be able to hear a difference between that and a $100 set, if you can't then there is no reason for the extra cost...

my current setup cost under $100, but imo, sounds better then some of the $600component sets i demo'ed...

at that point, you should start to notice that set 'A' allows the singers voice to come through better then set 'B', or that one set has louder tweeters, or a stronger midbass punch then others, or maybe one set allows you to realize that the drummer missed a beat in the middle of the song..

focus in on what qualities you desire in the drivers, and make a mental note about them, so when you read reviews, you can apply those characteristics to the reviews.

like the example above-- if you determined you liked a tweeter with more detail, you would know to stay away from those drivers because of their more 'laid back' sound..(ie: laid back= nothing that stands out, but nothing that detracts from the sound, just kind of 'there'..)

I feel that this thread has really morphed, but it gave me more perspective. I have never played much with EQs and I suppose that I ignorantly expected a magic bullet. My home system just sounds great without messing with the settings (I lucked out), and in cars I was always previously just focused on getting something in so I just had sound. This and my friends' interest in audio equipment have given me a lot of different perspective, so I am well aware of the fact that a person needn't spend into oblivion. I mentioned Pyle because they are the stereotypical cheapy driver and Focal because of the brands I used to sell or spent much time with they were my favorite sounding. I felt that Focal was the best we offered if price was not a priority, on a mid-range budget Alpine Type S were hard to beat, and on a tight budget Pioneer was my favorite. Mind you, this is all for highs and mids. Back to my original point, I have never really EQ'd in my car and so I gather this is just something that I am going to have to try. My biggest issue there is that in the automotive environment I am concerned that I will have to set my EQ when the car is still for safety, and then once the car is in motion and all the coloration of the vehicle, road, and wind will be introduced but not accounted for.
So in effect I am saying that this thread while not being what I expected has taught me a lot (like so many things do in life). I have a lot of time to mess about with trying different drivers, at least. The car I am planning for will be owned by me until the day that one (or both) of us gets totaled, so I have time to mess with options.

Back to my original point, I have never really EQ'd in my car and so I gather this is just something that I am going to have to try. My biggest issue there is that in the automotive environment I am concerned that I will have to set my EQ when the car is still for safety, and then once the car is in motion and all the coloration of the vehicle, road, and wind will be introduced but not accounted for.

my convertible doesn't sound perfect with the top down, and every once in a while, i get the desire to do something about it, but then i realize that i am doing 60mph, and the stereo is cranked louder then it should be to over take the wind noise, which goes away when i slow down, or put the top up, so it seems that the best single eq setting is the one you set while at a stand still.

now if you have a way to easily switch between eq settings, then there is no reason why you can't have a 'road' eq as well..

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

So in effect I am saying that this thread while not being what I expected has taught me a lot (like so many things do in life). I have a lot of time to mess about with trying different drivers, at least. The car I am planning for will be owned by me until the day that one (or both) of us gets totaled, so I have time to mess with options.

isn't that how all the best threads go? just have fun, take your time, and it should turn out great.

now if you have a way to easily switch between eq settings, then there is no reason why you can't have a 'road' eq as well..

How would you go about setting up one of these? Have someone else drive whilst you play with the settings from a seat that was not intended for the listener, anyway? I hate the thought of driving while adjusting the audio to taste. Also a problem for my car because all the controls are driver centric. Just a thought.

The term to look for is "convolve". In theory, you can take an impulse response from two different speakers and perform convolution on those responses and make either speaker sound similar to the other. The same idea can be applied to listening spaces. Convolving one listening space to sound like another, ie...a living room to sound like a concert hall.

Of course it's not exact and may wind up sounding like crap, but fun to play with. wungun did an excellent writeup on convolving in a car. I haven't tried it yet.

The term to look for is "convolve". In theory, you can take an impulse response from two different speakers and perform convolution on those responses and make either speaker sound similar to the other. The same idea can be applied to listening spaces. Convolving one listening space to sound like another, ie...a living room to sound like a concert hall.

Of course it's not exact and may wind up sounding like crap, but fun to play with. wungun did an excellent writeup on convolving in a car. I haven't tried it yet.

Good info, thanks.
----
Also, not to go too far off topic, but did anyone else suddenly have to agree to the terms again recently, or was I marked for something I did wrong?